Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mate. My home is Virginia Highlands. I live in the same nice neighborhood I think should be allowed to desnify. Frankly, I don't care if the individual property owners decide they don't want to sell to a developer, or if they don't want to put a business in their front room, or if they don't want to add an accessory dwelling unit onto their property. Sincerely, I do not care.
What I care about, is them actually having that choice. I care about the market having the flexibility to meet demands in a way that can provide affordable housing to as many people as possible.
The Virginia Highland Master Plan process a few years ago would have been a great forum for hashing this out. The meetings produced a lot of frank and detailed discussions about how the community envisioned its future.
The Virginia Highland Master Plan process a few years ago would have been a great forum for hashing this out. The meetings produced a lot of frank and detailed discussions about how the community envisioned its future.
It's not that you can't, it's that the process, by the city's own admission, is complex and inconsistent. It's that barriers artificially limit the return on investment, which limits the number of potential projects.
The development process in Atlanta could definitely be streamlined.
Nonetheless, an awful lot of people have been able to negotiate it as the city has begun to density in recent decades. If you're in SPI-18, for instance, just file for an SAP and you should be able to move along fairly promptly.
If you're seeking a variance or a rezoning, that can take a little more time and effort, yet folks do it constantly. Take a look at the BZA and ZRB agendas and you'll typically find 20 or 30 items per month. Some are big commercial developers, but lots of them are individuals and small enterprises.
As I said earlier, the key is to do your homework. Talk to the existing neighbors and get them on your side, or at least apprise them of what you want to do. Then lay out your case to the NPU and the city and chances are very good that you'll be approved. You may have to make a few concessions and neaten up the edges, but that's life in the city, where there are many competing interests. I'd wager that the approval rate is 90% or better.
Development in Atlanta is child's play compared to what you have to go through in cities like Chicago, New York, Boston or LA.
The development process in Atlanta could definitely be streamlined.
Nonetheless, an awful lot of people have been able to negotiate it as the city has begun to density in recent decades. If you're in SPI-18, for instance, just file for an SAP and you should be able to move along fairly promptly.
If you're seeking a variance or a rezoning, that can take a little more time and effort, yet folks do it constantly. Take a look at the BZA and ZRB agendas and you'll typically find 20 or 30 items per month. Some are big commercial developers, but lots of them are individuals and small enterprises.
As I said earlier, the key is to do your homework. Talk to the existing neighbors and get them on your side, or at least apprise them of what you want to do. Then lay out your case to the NPU and the city and chances are very good that you'll be approved. You may have to make a few concessions and neaten up the edges, but that's life in the city, where there are many competing interests. I'd wager that the approval rate is 90% or better.
Development in Atlanta is child's play compared to what you have to go through in cities like Chicago, New York, Boston or LA.
I think you're greatly underplaying the role that our zoning plays in limiting development. Just because you think all it takes is to do your 'homework' doesn't mean it's not a barrier. Just because other cities might be worse, doesn't mean that we don't have our own problems.
We shouldn't be perpetuating these problems. Let's level the field, give people and the market both the freedom needed to meet our pent-up demand. Otherwise we'll only continue to see housing costs rise.
I think you're greatly underplaying the role that our zoning plays in limiting development. Just because you think all it takes is to do your 'homework' doesn't mean it's not a barrier. Just because other cities might be worse, doesn't mean that we don't have our own problems.
We shouldn't be perpetuating these problems. Let's level the field, give people and the market both the freedom needed to meet our pent-up demand. Otherwise we'll only continue to see housing costs rise.
With all due respect, you're greatly overplaying the role of zoning.
Yes, most successful single family neighborhoods are very interested in maintaining the conditions that make them desirable places to live. You won't get a warm reception if you roll into Morningside or Ansley Park or Druid Hills and start telling people they need to break up their huge lots to allow additional density in the form of smaller low-priced duplexes and multi-family units. Most of these folks will suggest that you start with some of the many areas in the city that are vacant or grossly underutilized.
And why not do that before coming after extremely successful, highly invested areas that have been set for single family living since day one and have thrived that way for a hundred years? It's hard to imagine a more destructive approach to development.
In fact, all of these successful old neighborhoods have yielded substantially to urbanization and have agreed to a lot of additional density by way of apartments, condos and townhomes. This still goes on all the time, but it is done --as it should be -- with respect for history and for the major investment of time and money that residents have put in.
And let's not confuse increased density with affordability. In some situations, you may get cheaper housing with density, but in other cases it will drive prices through the roof.
If you truly want more entry level housing in the city proper, why not focus on the areas that the city has prioritized for transit oriented development? I'd refer you back to CDP-O-1342, which I posted earlier. This specifies TOD within 1/2 mile of all MARTA stations and identifies numerous redevelopment sites around each station.
Or put together a project for SPI-18. Or near Mims Park. All of these areas are ripe for such development and I'll guarantee you'd get a prompt and favorable response from the city.
Not really. How many people are looking to buy at any one time, at that relatively low price point? And it's not like those are the only properties that will ever be on the market.
it's small 800 in the scale of losing a 100k to genification its small. Atlanta growth in the core neighborhoods during the 2000s was off set by the lost in others. Atlanta lost more just in getting rid of public housing alone then amount of affordable units you said is available. If you look at the average amount of units for theses upscale projects are like 200 units.
Also being multi unit itself doesn't make the neighborhood urban. A lot of which you speak could be older suburban style appararment complexes. Some could even be run down. Looking for something affordable doesn't mean there looking for trash. This could also make people look to the suburbs. The city does have a away to go with more affordable multi units. In mix incomes areas.
Last edited by chiatldal; 06-09-2017 at 01:25 PM..
The bulk of the evidence marshaled in this paper suggests that zoning, and other land-use controls, are more responsible for high prices where we see them. There is a huge gap between the price of land implied by the gap between home prices and construction costs and the price of land implied by the price differences between homes on 10,000 square feet and homes on 15,000 square feet. Measures of zoning strictness are highly correlated with high prices. Although all of our evidence is suggestive, not definitive, it seems to suggest that this form of government regulation is responsible for high housing costs where they exist.
We find that regulation does matter: when new construction is more constrained, as measured either by a lower supply elasticity or the presence of certain regulations, affordable units are more likely to filter up and become unaffordable, relative to remaining in the affordable stock. We find this result to be quite compelling and to offer an important lesson for policymakers. The effects of land-use regulation are not limited to raising the price of owner-occupied housing and reducing access to homeownership. They also have a clear negative impact on the most vulnerable. Given the ample efforts to document the difficult and worsening affordability crisis for the least well-off, this has to be a concern.
On that day, the connection between land-use regulations and higher housing costs, long made by urbanist bloggers and think-tankers, was finally acknowledged by a sitting president, when the Obama administration published the report "Housing Development Toolkit."
The surprising thing was that this call for deregulation came from a Democratic president whose answer for other government-imposed problems--from expensive health care to failing inner city schools to slow economic growth--is to advocate for more government interference. So what inspired Obama's unusual position?
It might be that the academic literature has by now grown so overwhelming that certain conclusions can't be ignored. There have been dozens of studies in recent decades, from liberal, conservative and non-partisan organizations, arriving at the same verdict: land-use regulations increase housing prices.
No, I don't think I am.
Quote:
Yes, most successful single family neighborhoods are very interested in maintaining the conditions that make them desirable places to live. You won't get a warm reception if you roll into Morningside or Ansley Park or Druid Hills and start telling people they need to break up their huge lots to allow additional density in the form of smaller low-priced duplexes and multi-family units. Most of these folks will suggest that you start with some of the many areas in the city that are vacant or grossly underutilized.
No one - not I nor any developer - can force a private property owner to sell their property, nor split up their property, nor add any additional housing to their property without that property owner's permission. Period. Hard stop.
You keep putting up this idea that, just because something is allowed, that it will happen no matter what, and through force. This is true in some cases, but not here. If more density comes to those expensive, already built-out neighborhoods, it is because individuals have made the decision to do so with their private property, and because there is a market for them, a need for housing who's economics happen to line up with building in that area.
Quote:
And why not do that before coming after extremely successful, highly invested areas that have been set for single family living since day one and have thrived that way for a hundred years? It's hard to imagine a more destructive approach to development.
I can. It's the approach to development that prioritizes limiting housing supply in place of some idealized notion of what a neighborhood should be rather than what it needs to be.
Besides, do you think what's now downtown was always billed as what it is? Should we have kept it perpetually small homesteads to 'preserve the character of the city'? Please. Historical preservation is one thing, but these are entire neighborhoods where houses are torn down for McMansions all the time. Is it so awful, then, to bring in some apartments and shops?
Quote:
In fact, all of these successful old neighborhoods have yielded substantially to urbanization and have agreed to a lot of additional density by way of apartments, condos and townhomes. This still goes on all the time, but it is done --as it should be -- with respect for history and for the major investment of time and money that residents have put in.
That's great, though I question this assessment greatly. Assuming it's true, they should, along with the rest of the city, keep going until we start to make a real dent in the latent demand.
Quote:
And let's not confuse increased density with affordability. In some situations, you may get cheaper housing with density, but in other cases it will drive prices through the roof.
Land values go up, but per unit housing costs go down, as long as you meet demand with supply.
Quote:
If you truly want more entry level housing in the city proper, why not focus on the areas aht the city has prioritized for transit oriented development? I'd refer you back to CDP-O-1342, which I posted earlier. This specifies TOD within 1/2 mile of all MARTA stations and identifies numerous redevelopment sites around each station.
Or put together a project for SPI-18. Or near Mims Park. All of these areas are ripe for such development and I'll guarantee you'd get a prompt and favorable response from the city.
I have said before that I have no issue with prioritizing corridors, just that I don't think the minimum level of residential zoning should exclude low-rise, multi-family, mixed use, removal of parking minimums, and other good urban policies.
Other than that, I have a real hard time picking 'winners and looses' in this case. I find it amoral to try and shell-off what you consider toxic or bad onto others, especially when there's such a clear income divide when doing so. I'd much rather level the field and let an inherently (mostly) calculating system like the market make those decisions rather than dictate explicitly.
At least then we can use active concentrating policies, like building transit and parks and infrastructure, to attract development instead of dictation and restriction. One creates, the other limits. It's an important distinction that you seem to be missing.
Good post. Moreover, I really think the notion of a "housing affordability crisis" is something of a red herring, though I am sympathetic to it in theory. A quick search of the MLS reveals over 800 properties (SF, townhome or condo) priced below $200k within the confines of 285, between Buckhead and a mile or so south of I-20. That's not an insignificant number. Spread the search a bit wider and the number increases several times over.
In many cases, I think that what some call the "affordability crisis" can be better translated as, "I can't afford to live where I want to hang out." That is nothing new. When I moved here two decades ago, Virginia-Highland was fairly recently gentrified, but was all the same certainly out of reach by that point for a mid-twentysomething making a decent but by no means high entry-level salary. So, I, and others like me, had to find other places to buy, even if we might have preferred purchasing there. Some, through a combination of luck and skill, may have chosen the next hot area; others perhaps not so much.
That same cycle has happened several times since then, with new areas becoming the "next big thing" every time. Grant Park, Old Fourth Ward, Kirkwood, Downtown Decatur, even Downtown Marietta, where I now live, were all once places where you probably didn't want to live, but with a combination of civic involvement, municipal leaders with some foresight and a little luck, they've all become pretty desirable. And yes, these areas have largely seen their revitalization come concurrent with an increase in density, and I am all in favor of that. However, those density increases have been accomplished, in part, thanks to guidelines that mandated the preservation or creation of certain amounts of green space, making sure that impacts on schools, utilities, storm water runoff and many other things were manageable and that the community would be as or more liveable than it was before. Doing away with all zoning has the potential to imperil all of that and more, and I think that's what gives some people pause.
Yes, that is exactly what we are taking about.
There will always be more affordable options if you go way out in to the suburbs or somewhere with bad crime and schools.
The point is, more people want to live in the city and we should legalize it.
If you don't think housing affordability is a concern, then you should just move further out then and leave those of us in the city to build additional housing to meet the demand.
This "F-U-I-got-mine!" mentality with housing has got to stop!
Mate. My home is Virginia Highlands. I live in the same nice neighborhood I think should be allowed to desnify. Frankly, I don't care if the individual property owners decide they don't want to sell to a developer, or if they don't want to put a business in their front room, or if they don't want to add an accessory dwelling unit onto their property. Sincerely, I do not care.
What I care about, is them actually having that choice. I care about the market having the flexibility to meet demands in a way that can provide affordable housing to as many people as possible.
That's great...YOU don't care, but you're also a very fringe urban-fabric type. You do not represent the average person. And the average person, for the most part, likely doesn't want those things in their neighborhood to the degree that you do. It has nothing to do with **** you, I got mine. It has to do purely with the quality of life people prefer, and not everyone prefers to have a business or a multi-family dwelling next to them.
Let me give you an example of something in my neighborhood. We live in a townhome neighborhood with one-car garages, of tightly packed homes along a single boulevard-style street. Somehow, one of the owners managed to get approved to run an ice cream truck business out of his home. This means that from morning till night, there is sometimes a line of ice cream trucks out in the street waiting to pick up inventory or getting repaired. And all the truck drivers just kind of milling around. This is a nuisance, and should never have been allowed.
So, now...that one guy's choice (and whatever boneheaded person approved it) has affected a neighborhood of 410 homes who have to maneuver around his operation.
These types of things may not bother you, because I think you'd be happy even if you were living between a concrete plant and a nightclub, but that's just not a realistic expectation for most people.
Quote:
See, density, especially mixed use, does not kill property values. If anything, the per acre values will go up in the long run. The per-unit housing costs, however, will go down as supply grows to meet demand.
I guarantee you that if you started dropping duplexes and apartment buildings in the middle of ridgewood, the values of the existing houses would go down.
Quote:
What do you think could have been done with the property if it was easier to shift its assigned zoning? If it didn't need so much parking? If it didn't need the set backs? What do you think the chances are of that property having been sold to a different developer if the potential Return On Investment was better due to higher density allowances?
Fuqua's style is a symptom of our limits, not a reason to keep them.
The property is zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial, just like the area was where Atlanta Station is now. It's been sitting there for years as a derelict lot, and was previously an office building. I see no reason more Atlantic Station-style mixed-use development couldn't have happened there. If it happened 1/4 mile away, why couldn't it happen on this lot? Apparently, no one was interested enough. Do you really think parking minimums and setbacks are what left this lot empty for so long?
Quote:
Do you really, really think it's cost effective to drop a Costco into a place like Virginia Highlands, or Inman Park, or pretty much any of the really established neighborhoods? I also question as to why you think that a Costco of all things represents an increase in density, when it's a massive warehouse store with giant parking lots. It's just about as poster-child low-density as I can think of.
No, but it could under your proposals. Think about it.
Oh, and i didn't say a Costco represented density, just that if a property owner is free to do whatever they want with their property, this may well become your reality. Again...think about it.
Quote:
What would more likely happen is an apartment building with ground-level commercial space. That COULD NOT HAPPEN unless enough people made the personal decision to sell their property to a developer who believes they can make a return on investment large enough to buy those properties. The other residents can then go to those new shops, to the cafes, to the restaurants. They can make friends with the new residents, and, god forbid, learn to actually embrace the new aspects of the neighborhood.
You sound like a House Hunters character. After visiting the cafes, will you sip coffee on your deck before entertaining friends in your mancave?
Quote:
If THAT is your idea of toxic, then I don't know what to tell you.
Breaking up established neighborhoods is my idea of toxic.
Quote:
Oh no. New neighbors in the 9th largest metro by population, 10th largest metro by GDP, and one of the fastest growing metro areas in the nation. The horror.
Not everyone wants to live in dense areas with hundreds and thousands of close-by neighbors. I don't know how many times this can be explained to you.
Quote:
Careful now, we might just actually achieve a level of density that properly supports car-less living, and healthier lifestyles, and which reduces pollution, and which is more energy efficient, and which actually supports the costs of the infrastructure serving the area. How awful.
You're right. We can do that in vast amounts of the city.
Quote:
The neighborhood level has no right to override both the needs of the collective metro, nor the individual liberties related there in. You won't change your mind, but I can not agree with you on this.
I don't care if you agree with me. I find your position completely devoid of reality and not even remotely associated with the desires of most people. There are people who live in 5th floor walkups in NYC who can't understand why anyone would want to live any other way, and there are people who live on ranches in Montana who can't understand why anyone would want to live any other way. Atlanta has what I consider to be a damn good mix of pleasing both.
People move here because of that. I moved here because of that. You appear to want a completely different city...one that pleases the urban, high-density, car-free lifestyle you want, but breaks apart the quiet, SFH neighborhoods with yards that others want. We can have both, quite easily, but that's not good enough for you, because you don't like it. That's where the problem is.
You keep trying to say that the rest of us think you want to force high density on others, even though not a single person has even insinuated that. All that others are saying is that some areas should not be up for the chopping block.
Quote:
1) Old Fourth Ward is a prime example of active development incentives rather than passive. Both the BeltLine and O4W Park brought positive attention to the area while doubling as pieces of practical city infrastructure. This is what the city should be doing (and to an extent are) to other parts of the city, instead of mandates, if it really wants to bring better development to under-developed areas.
2) Old Fourth Ward would likely be far more dense if not for restrictive policies like parking minimums and overly high requirements on floor areas.
Jesus Christ...how much more dense do you want it? The place is piled with huge multi-level apartment complexes in mid-level RG zones, and R5 zones, with lots down to 1/7 of an acre. There's so much construction happening there, you can't walk a block without stepping on a nail, yet that's STILL not enough for you? You want even more? Good Lord.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh
Yes, that is exactly what we are taking about.
There will always be more affordable options if you go way out in to the suburbs or somewhere with bad crime and schools.
The point is, more people want to live in the city and we should legalize it.
If you don't think housing affordability is a concern, then you should just move further out then and leave those of us in the city to build additional housing to meet the demand.
This "F-U-I-got-mine!" mentality with housing has got to stop!
That's not what it is at all. You really need to stop acting like a victim. You're blowing a minor issue that is pretty easily dealt with into a huge crisis of epic proportions. This style of of argument never works, and only stands to weaken support for the ideas. You can have the best idea in the world, but if you stand up in front of a group of people and start pounding your fists and telling them they're wrong, they're going to turn on you, no matter how good your idea is. When every alternative is shot down as not good enough, you essentially become like, well, Donald Trump.
Think about it. Numerous options and development areas have been given in thes thread, but none of them are good enough for you and fourthwarden. It appears that you will not rest until every lot in the city of Atlanta is deemed suitable and allowable for high-density development, no matter what the established residents of that area want. You will never win people over to your side with that mentality. Never. This is the kind of thing you should have learned in grade school. I mean, it's what we're teaching our five-year-old right now, and even he is starting to get it.
No one - not I nor any developer - can force a private property owner to sell their property, nor split up their property, nor add any additional housing to their property without that property owner's permission. Period. Hard stop.
You keep putting up this idea that, just because something is allowed, that it will happen no matter what, and through force. This is true in some cases, but not here. If more density comes to those expensive, already built-out neighborhoods, it is because individuals have made the decision to do so with their private property, and because there is a market for them, a need for housing who's economics happen to line up with building in that area.
I can. It's the approach to development that prioritizes limiting housing supply in place of some idealized notion of what a neighborhood should be rather than what it needs to be.
Besides, do you think what's now downtown was always billed as what it is? Should we have kept it perpetually small homesteads to 'preserve the character of the city'? Please. Historical preservation is one thing, but these are entire neighborhoods where houses are torn down for McMansions all the time. Is it so awful, then, to bring in some apartments and shops?
That's great, though I question this assessment greatly. Assuming it's true, they should, along with the rest of the city, keep going until we start to make a real dent in the latent demand.
Land values go up, but per unit housing costs go down, as long as you meet demand with supply.
I have said before that I have no issue with prioritizing corridors, just that I don't think the minimum level of residential zoning should exclude low-rise, multi-family, mixed use, removal of parking minimums, and other good urban policies.
Other than that, I have a real hard time picking 'winners and looses' in this case. I find it amoral to try and shell-off what you consider toxic or bad onto others, especially when there's such a clear income divide when doing so. I'd much rather level the field and let an inherently (mostly) calculating system like the market make those decisions rather than dictate explicitly.
At least then we can use active concentrating policies, like building transit and parks and infrastructure, to attract development instead of dictation and restriction. One creates, the other limits. It's an important distinction that you seem to be missing.
These arguments would apply if we were in a situation where there was a shortage of developable land.
However, that's not the case in Atlanta. There are huge areas waiting to be redeveloped that already have very favorable zoning and world class transportation infrastructure. If you want to talk about social justice, why would you let them continue to languish?
It would be the height of folly to start dismantling the city's most successful areas.
Last edited by arjay57; 06-10-2017 at 10:56 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
